T.P.S.MANN,J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED of the judgments and decrees passed by learned lower Courts, whereby his suit for permanent injunction stands dismissed, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE claim of the plaintiff as taken by him in the plaint was that site bearing No. 36 min denoted in marks 'ABCDE' in the site plan and bounded on the North by Phirni, on the South by property of Amru etc., on the West by his own property and his brother-Jasbir Singh, while on the East by property of Jasbir Singh, situated in village Allarh Pind was owned and possessed by him and his brother Jasbir Singh. Both of them were in exclusive possession of the same. They had purchased the site in question for a sum of Rs. 1000/- from one Dhian Singh vide registered sale deed dated 24.8.1973 and since then they are owners in possession of the same. On the other hand, defendant Gram Panchayat had no concern over the suit property, but was threatening to interfere in the peaceful, actual and physical possession of the plaintiff and his brother, for the reason that Sarpanch was inimical towards him due to party-faction. The plaintiff had asked defendant-Gram Panchayat not to interefere in his possession and that of his brother, but it had no effect. Accordingly, he filed suit for permanent injunction so as to restrain defendant-Gram Panchayat from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful, actual and physical possession of his and his brother. Upon notice, written statement was filed by the Gram Panchayat, wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action or locus standi to file the suit. He had not come to the Court with clean hands. He concealed the actual facts as existing at the spot in respect of the suit property. The site plan filed by him was wrong. He was a head strong person and wanted to usurp the public passage, falling on the Western side of plot No. 36. At the time of partition of the country, all the residents of the village migrated. The entire Abadi Deh i.e. plots, residential houses etc. became evacuee property, including the suit property. In the year 1953, the entire evacuee property was divided into plots, numbered as 1 to 36. Plots No. 1 to 33 were allotted to various allottees, who came from Pakistan. Plot No. 36, wherein the alleged suit property was shown was, kept reserved for common purposes. The suit property fell within lal lakir. Streets had been carved out. The site plan was prepared on the pattern of model town. On the Western side of plot No. 36, there was a passage of 16 feet wide, which ran into South to North direction. It touched the link to the 20 feet wide street on the Northern side and 16 feet wide outer street/road on the Southern side. In the site plan attached by the plaintiff, the ownership of the plaintiff and that of his brother Jasbir Singh on Plot Nos. 34 and 35 was wrongly shown and that there is a passage of 16 feet wide between those plots and plot No. 36. People had been using it since the time of allotment. The plaintiff had been allotted plot Nos. 16 and 17. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was not justified in laying claim over plot bearing No. 36. The suit was, therefore, sought to be dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, along with his brother Jasbir Singh, purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed Ex. P.2 from Dhian Singh and, therefore, the defendant-Gram Panchayat had no concern with the same. Moreover, the suit property had been carved out of the evacuee property and, therefore, the defendant-Gram Panchayat had no claim over the same.;